It would be asking too much of Trump to note the illogic of believing the fake news failing NY Times in this instance. Oh, I see, when that paper reports something favorable to him, it's not fake news. Of course.

Meanwhile, Democrats are posing as outraged over the Supreme Court nominee. They won't lift a lip against rapist-in-chief Bill Clinton,You'd Better Put Some Ice On That: How I Survived Being Raped by Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick

It's a good point. Broaddrick and the others should have been believed. At the very least, if there was doubt about their story, and supposedly at the time investigators thought there was, then a lie detector test like Dr. Ford took would have been a good idea.

I realize that's a cheap call to make now. The time to do something about it would have been while Bill Clinton was President, or even while he was a candidate. But I can't convince myself that because Clinton got away with abuse that means that we should put another liar and sexual abuser on the Supreme Court.

Enough. All the men should know that if there is something like that in their past, and even more if it is in their present, they should renounce public ambition. If they think they should be forgiven, let them make a clean confession and leave that to the public and the ones who make the calls.

KindaSkolarly wrote:

This Rosenstein thing is very, very good. He's consistently worked to thwart Trump and the will of the American people. There's no way he can survive this. He attempted to lead a coup against the President of the United States.

I'm not so sure. What he attempted to do was put the truth out about the state of our current leadership. Yes, he wanted it to result in the 25th amendment being invoked, but that means he had some reason to believe that the bulk of the cabinet would, if faced with recordings of Dear Leader in action, conclude that the President is unfit. We should let that sink in. No guns, no taking over radio stations, just telling the truth.

He wasn't disagreeing with policy (apparently he had his own ambivalence about Comey being fired) but with the way "decisions" were being made. And frankly, we have all seen that. One week all the FBI files on the Russian investigation are going to be released unredacted, the next week someone has talked the President down from that. Dear Leader has jerked around about trade, personnel, requirements for agreement with North Korea, NATO, and a dozen smaller issues. We haven't seen leadership this erratic and emotional since Bokassa in the Central African Republic.

Republicans may use the excuse to go after Rosenstein for standing by the rule of law. But they know they have to wait til after the midterms if they want to avoid showing themselves to be opponents of the rule of law. With the Senate in the balance and the House already most likely going Democrat, I kind of think they won't drink that kool-aid.

It's interesting how much is waiting til after the midterms. The Medicare cuts they have called for in their budget resolution, the rest of the gutting of the ACA, and the complete rejection of accountability for the Thief in Chief - all will be happily adopted if they keep both houses of congress. And maybe they will shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, just to make sure the message is clear.

men should know that if there is something like that in their past, and even more if it is in their present, they should renounce public ambition. If they think they should be forgiven, let them make a clean confession and leave that to the public and the ones who make the calls.

That is a completely unrealistic standard. "Something like that" opens the gate to distorted recollections and venal motives of others. In responding to the revelations of the extent of sexual assault, one alleged incident as a minor, in which no physical harm occurred, does not meet an acceptable standard of "something like that" to disqualify a Supreme Court nominee. Unfortunately, the vitriol in public debate means that your call for clean confessions would elevate allegations above their real weight.

Interbane wrote:

Quote:

Then we have a problem of interpretation.

You artfully dodge the intent of my question. What if it was attempted rape, and Kavanaugh was acting maliciously? Your dodge makes it seem as if this isn't an acceptable answer to you. As if her story MUST be either a lie or a misinterpretation. It seems to me that denial of her telling the truth is more politically motivated than the alternative. A case of projection.

No dodging or projection, the point here is that the claim of a single incident of unwelcome harassment 35 years ago when a minor, which otherwise seems out of character for Kavanaugh, does not meet the burden of proof required to reject a Supreme Court nominee who sixty million American voters expected to be appointed.

I am not accusing Ford of lying, but cannot rule out that her memory may have grown, especially considering the massive interest in this appointment and her clear political opposition to Kavanaugh. Her traumatised perception as a fifteen year old may have misperceived the intent, since it seems she left the room very soon after making clear her lack of consent.

Denial or acceptance of Ford's story is equally political, based on whether or not people think it is right to attempt to stymie every action of the legitimately elected American President. It is not calling Ford a snowflake to point out that many politicians are willing to exaggerate sexual accusations for political motives. That is not to excuse sexual assault, only to recognise the political context.

men should know that if there is something like that in their past, and even more if it is in their present, they should renounce public ambition. If they think they should be forgiven, let them make a clean confession and leave that to the public and the ones who make the calls.

That is a completely unrealistic standard.

Yes, unfortunately it is. We have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of accusations in the last year about sexual abuse. A few have not resulted in additional victims also coming forward. Not a single one has turned out to be manufactured for attention (because who doesn't like death threats?) or the schadenfreude of taking down the powerful.

Robert Tulip wrote:

"Something like that" opens the gate to distorted recollections and venal motives of others.

This is like "guilt-proofing" the powerful. If the charges are not going to be taken seriously, with interviews of witnesses under oath, etc., and apparently they are not, that means a victim's concern for the public and the integrity of its officials counts for nothing next to the impunity of someone in the public eye.

We all know that a lie works best when it is kept simple, short and just gets us by until the attention passes. The supposedly horrible prospect of a brazen liar manufacturing a lifetime of pretend trauma so that she could take down a possible public servant is not really all that credible. But it plays well to political partisans.

Robert Tulip wrote:

In responding to the revelations of the extent of sexual assault, one alleged incident as a minor, in which no physical harm occurred, does not meet an acceptable standard of "something like that" to disqualify a Supreme Court nominee.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. "He didn't actually rape her" is not a standard for the Supreme Court. If someone had only pretended a lynching, or only sent a blackmail letter as a joke, it would still mean their character is on the wrong side of the law for one of its chief officers.

I think Kavanaugh is probably not such a bad person. His judgment in a number of high-level positions can be questioned, but in general his character has been good and it's probably no accident that no other women have come forward to accuse him. He probably never did anything like that again. But that is not a reason to ignore it when choosing a Supreme Court Justice. His pattern is of drunkenness (and probably gambling) and a wink-wink pretense that it doesn't count, which really should disqualify him for that alone. But more seriously, this incident still puts him squarely on the side of privilege, where he has been with essentially every decision where it is an issue.

Our Dear Leader's views on the subject are revealed by his call for the death penalty for the so-called "Central Park Five" who were later shown to be innocent. If you are in the elite establishment of people destined to make money, you are untouchable and your lawyers will see to that. If your skin is brown and your bank account shallow, we will fry you to take out our frustrations. And Kavanaugh has set himself firmly in that mentality over his years in office.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Unfortunately, the vitriol in public debate means that your call for clean confessions would elevate allegations above their real weight.

Which means you conclude that public officials should choose denial and perjury rather than be judged publicly. Well, that's more realistic, but it is less moral, and less committed to law.

We have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of accusations in the last year about sexual abuse. Not a single one has turned out to be manufactured for attention

Sorry to dwell on this Kavanaugh case, but I find it fascinating as an example of culture war. There should be no question that the recent recognition of the human rights of victims of sexual assault is an overdue corrective to a previous culture of impunity. I have myself made numerous comments about the pathology of abuse in churches, and what a depraved culture this pattern of conduct indicates. But such correctives do have a tendency to swing the pendulum too far in some cases. Some studies have found a high proportion of rape claims to be false, as detailed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape The assumption that a victim will be automatically believed brings a severe moral hazard. This obviously traumatises victims when their honest accounts are disbelieved, and yet avoiding punishment of the innocent and preventing vexatious accusations are important public goods.

Harry Marks wrote:

"guilt-proofing" the powerful.

That is absolutely not the case. Weinstein has hardly been ‘guilt-proofed’ and nor should anyone with a clear history of assault. But the Kavanaugh case is far from clear, as an isolated incident where false perceptions are possible, backed by a Democrat horde baying for blood against Trump.

Harry Marks wrote:

If the charges are not going to be taken seriously, with interviews of witnesses under oath, etc., and apparently they are not, that means a victim's concern for the public and the integrity of its officials counts for nothing next to the impunity of someone in the public eye.

The context here is that a short delay could remove Trump’s nomination power, with massive effect on American public policy. I don’t get the impression people think Ford should not be taken seriously, just that she should not be made an excuse for Democrats to game the system. This incident is very minor on the scale of crime even if proven, which it can’t be while Mark Judge sides with Kavanaugh. I see she will testify this week, although her camp is trying to stall the process.

Harry Marks wrote:

We all know that a lie works best when it is kept simple, short and just gets us by until the attention passes. The supposedly horrible prospect of a brazen liar manufacturing a lifetime of pretend trauma so that she could take down a possible public servant is not really all that credible. But it plays well to political partisans.

No doubt Ford was traumatised, but the possibility of misperception on her part is a legitimate question.

Harry Marks wrote:

"He didn't actually rape her" is not a standard for the Supreme Court. If someone had only pretended a lynching, or only sent a blackmail letter as a joke, it would still mean their character is on the wrong side of the law for one of its chief officers.

What looks most probable in this case, assuming the incident occurred as described which is still unproven, is that Kavanaugh fully believed that Ford was consenting and let her go as soon as she made clear she did not consent. It is perfectly understandable that her perception was different. Perpetrators with a pattern of such conduct are very different from someone who experiments once as a youth and immediately learns about appropriate boundaries.

Harry Marks wrote:

He probably never did anything like that again. But that is not a reason to ignore it when choosing a Supreme Court Justice.

And nobody is suggesting anyone ignore it, since it has been front page news for several weeks. It is about weighing the evidence and forming an opinion. It is wrong to say that if you don’t like the decision you have been ignored.

Harry Marks wrote:

this incident still puts him squarely on the side of privilege

and that is why Democrats hate him, as he is a primary target for the war on inequality, with this Ford case just the most convenient delaying tactic.

Harry Marks wrote:

, that public officials should choose denial and perjury rather than be judged publicly [is] more realistic, but it is less moral, and less committed to law.

Realism in politics is not a sin, when it means a capacity to weigh the moral worth of rival factors and likely reactions. To be ‘judged publicly’ in such a case is the equivalent of being lynched.

Sorry to dwell on this Kavanaugh case, but I find it fascinating as an example of culture war. There should be no question that the recent recognition of the human rights of victims of sexual assault is an overdue corrective to a previous culture of impunity. I have myself made numerous comments about the pathology of abuse in churches, and what a depraved culture this pattern of conduct indicates. But such correctives do have a tendency to swing the pendulum too far in some cases. Some studies have found a high proportion of rape claims to be false, as detailed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape The assumption that a victim will be automatically believed brings a severe moral hazard. This obviously traumatises victims when their honest accounts are disbelieved, and yet avoiding punishment of the innocent and preventing vexatious accusations are important public goods.

What the MeToo movement represents seems so clearly an example of evolving civil rights that I wouldn't even use the term 'culture wars' to describe it. I would also hope this is an issue with broad bipartisan support, and I think in general it is. What complicates matters is--no surprise--sex. I agree that belief of claims of abuse should't be held to be automatic. There have been instances where false claims of child sexual abuse have damaged innocent people. So we need to be careful.

Quote:

The context here is that a short delay could remove Trump’s nomination power, with massive effect on American public policy. I don’t get the impression people think Ford should not be taken seriously, just that she should not be made an excuse for Democrats to game the system. This incident is very minor on the scale of crime even if proven, which it can’t be while Mark Judge sides with Kavanaugh. I see she will testify this week, although her camp is trying to stall the process.

As you're aware, the Republicans delayed a hearing on a new SC justice for a year so that they could get the justice they wanted. They should shut up about a minor delay to thoroughly investigate the charges. If it's true that we don't have a full picture of what happened that night 35 years ago, we can't say this was a minor crime. As alleged, the offense is serious and if reported would have resulted in judgment and punishment against Kavanaugh. He may have been enveloped in a culture of beer and macho swagger, and he may have done this just once, but that has never served as an excuse for illegal behavior.

Quote:

No doubt Ford was traumatised, but the possibility of misperception on her part is a legitimate question.

The details need to be investigated, but the possibility that Dr. Ford is making this up from whole cloth is extremely small. It's still true, though, that if Kavanaugh is falsely saying that nothing happened, he is not fit to be a justice. If he might have been so drunk that he didn't recall what had happened, then he should pay the delayed consequence of the behavior. That's the way life works sometimes.

Quote:

What looks most probable in this case, assuming the incident occurred as described which is still unproven, is that Kavanaugh fully believed that Ford was consenting and let her go as soon as she made clear she did not consent. It is perfectly understandable that her perception was different. Perpetrators with a pattern of such conduct are very different from someone who experiments once as a youth and immediately learns about appropriate boundaries.

But why does the more innocent interpretation seem probable? Because he was a good boy and student from a good family? Unfortunately that doesn't inoculate anyone from behaving like this. Having another guy present also makes a consenting situation seem unlikely.

Sorry to dwell on this Kavanaugh case, but I find it fascinating as an example of culture war. There should be no question that the recent recognition of the human rights of victims of sexual assault is an overdue corrective to a previous culture of impunity.

I have been guilty of that myself, for accepting the discounting of Bill Clinton's victims. I think all of us have learned something about the prevalence of this sort of behavior. In a sense that's the main message of #MeToo - the culture of discounting and victim-shaming led to a pattern of women suffering in silence. I kind of think the Republicans would yank the nomination and go with somebody cleaner if not for the concern about running out of time.

Robert Tulip wrote:

I have myself made numerous comments about the pathology of abuse in churches, and what a depraved culture this pattern of conduct indicates.

Not only the church coverups, but the widespread shaming into silence of victims, too. There is something deeply disturbed in a culture where the victims do not simply come forward, in confidence that their allegations will be taken seriously.

There is not much indication of swinging too far yet. There were attempts to smear a "perpetrator" like the well-known Aziz Ansari case, where the man was insensitive and aggressive, but had signs of genuine consent and only "lacked affirmative consent." But this was not a lie, it was only an effort to claim victimhood from an ambiguous case.

From the Wiki piece, we are apparently talking about fewer than 5 percent of cases in which allegations did not hold up to investigation. I am willing to believe that 1 in 20 rape allegations comes from an effort to cause trouble for a man the woman is mad at (probably with good reason in most cases.) Some of those are probably mental illness of a mild sort. On the other hand, inability to track a perp down, plus the intimidating reception by the system and the fear of repeat violence by the offender, means that more than 2/3 of rapes go unreported in the U.S. We are a long way from overcorrecting.https://www.rainn.org/statistics/crimin ... ice-system

Robert Tulip wrote:

The assumption that a victim will be automatically believed brings a severe moral hazard. This obviously traumatises victims when their honest accounts are disbelieved, and yet avoiding punishment of the innocent and preventing vexatious accusations are important public goods.

Yes, we generally avoid conviction of the innocent, unless they are ethnic minorities and the prosecutor needs to get the conviction rate up. But we are not talking about convicting Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, just the opposite, we are talking about rushing his nomination through without a proper hearing, precisely because the politics are not favorable to actually looking into the facts. The Republican Senators who go along with this should be deeply ashamed. But the chances of that are about like the chances that Georgetown Prep frat-boys will make a clean breast of their behavior under the influence of alcohol.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:

"guilt-proofing" the powerful.

That is absolutely not the case. Weinstein has hardly been ‘guilt-proofed’ and nor should anyone with a clear history of assault. But the Kavanaugh case is far from clear, as an isolated incident where false perceptions are possible, backed by a Democrat horde baying for blood against Trump.

Weinstein will probably be doing time in prison. Probably so should Bill Clinton, and so should Teddy Kennedy have. If Kavanaugh were merely running for office, I would say the fact that it was an isolated incident should allow it to be left up to the voters. But a Supreme Court seat is a lifetime appointment, and it is the final arbiter of application of the law in our country.

Robert Tulip wrote:

The context here is that a short delay could remove Trump’s nomination power, with massive effect on American public policy.

Yes, we Democrats are painfully conscious of the effect of a "short" delay on a Supreme Court nomination. You do realize that if the Senate changes parties and Professor Ford says, "Tee hee, I lied just to get y'all to delay," she could go to jail. That's the concern you are alluding to, that the door would be opened to false and malicious charges just to have a political influence. That was the accusation against Anita Hill, and Joe Biden shamefully joined in the railroading to avoid a proper hearing, suppressing evidence that would likely have changed the outcome of the vote. Who exactly was deceitful and malicious? Who has a track record now of suppressing careful inquiry when such events have occurred? This pious concern for "encouraging false accusations" is entirely too convenient.

Robert Tulip wrote:

I don’t get the impression people think Ford should not be taken seriously, just that she should not be made an excuse for Democrats to game the system. This incident is very minor on the scale of crime even if proven, which it can’t be while Mark Judge sides with Kavanaugh. I see she will testify this week, although her camp is trying to stall the process.

And the perjury about it? The affair Bill Clinton was impeached for was fairly minor - his sexual harassment of Monica Lewinsky was unacceptable, but still not violent - but he lied about it. And it turns out the allegations of more serious conduct were probably true, so the pattern of his behavior should have been listened to much earlier. Why should we waltz down the same path to perdition because it is inconvenient for the Republican hopes of overturning Roe v Wade?

Robert Tulip wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:

The supposedly horrible prospect of a brazen liar manufacturing a lifetime of pretend trauma so that she could take down a possible public servant is not really all that credible. But it plays well to political partisans.

No doubt Ford was traumatised, but the possibility of misperception on her part is a legitimate question.

Then it should get a legitimate hearing, and Mark Judge, who has confessed to addiction and rampant drunkenness, should be forced to look Dr. Ford in the eye, as well as the Senate Committee, and talk about what the culture was like and why we should believe that she is making it up.

Robert Tulip wrote:

What looks most probable in this case, assuming the incident occurred as described which is still unproven, is that Kavanaugh fully believed that Ford was consenting and let her go as soon as she made clear she did not consent. It is perfectly understandable that her perception was different.

Because we know that drunken high school boys are oh, so careful about consent, and would never put their hand over a girl's mouth because they would never think of taking her clothes off without her consent. And of course since it was all just a misunderstanding, that's why he went to her the next week and apologized, and swore up and down that he would never do something so disrespectful again, and, now fully sober, asked for her forgiveness.

Give me a break.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Perpetrators with a pattern of such conduct are very different from someone who experiments once as a youth and immediately learns about appropriate boundaries.

Oh, he knows all about appropriate boundaries. If you can get away with it, it is in bounds. The Clarence Thomas hearings showed it, the political call on Clinton's lying showed it, the 2016 election showed it. My question is what will it take for the country to stop confirming the corruption.

It is wrong to say that if you don’t like the decision you have been ignored.

Well, that depends very much on how the decision is reached. Party line vote? Looks very much like nobody cares diddly squat for the evidence.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:

this incident still puts him squarely on the side of privilege

and that is why Democrats hate him, as he is a primary target for the war on inequality, with this Ford case just the most convenient delaying tactic.

I don't deny either that it is convenient or that I detest his "jurisprudence." The Supreme Court already has at least four zombies, as evidenced by the AFSCME decision, and the country does not need another. It's disgusting that the whole issue of timing and the fairness of the investigation is being reduced to their feeling that without another zombie, the Court might engage in thought. But to the contrary I would argue that Feinstein's sometimes clumsy handling of the case has been all about respecting Ford's truth and her right to bring it forward or not as she saw fit. At least Dianne Feinstein showed some actual human consideration in the case.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Realism in politics is not a sin, when it means a capacity to weigh the moral worth of rival factors and likely reactions. To be ‘judged publicly’ in such a case is the equivalent of being lynched.

The "realism" of preferring the politically convenient to the truth is indeed a sin. Public hearing really isn't the equivalent of being lynched, no matter what Clarence Thomas alleged. He complained that he would never get his good name back, but had spent 15 years behind the scenes besmirching it. What he was really complaining about was his behavior being made public - the same thing the Catholic Church suppressed. Let's give the facts a fair hearing, as we did not in Thomas' case, as the RCC would not allow in decades of their mishandling of child abuse.

I agree that belief of claims of abuse should't be held to be automatic. There have been instances where false claims of child sexual abuse have damaged innocent people. So we need to be careful.

I agree with the two of you about that. But both types of error need to be considered, and if there is a credible accusation, it should be looked at carefully, not expediently and expeditiously.

DWill wrote:

As you're aware, the Republicans delayed a hearing on a new SC justice for a year so that they could get the justice they wanted.

One might conclude that the Republican party had abandoned all interest in confirming based on qualifications, but it was only the leadership who smothered the nomination of Merrick Garland. They rightly believed that a number of Republican Senators would have voted based on qualifications and approved Garland. If Murkowski and Collins want a place in history as profiles in courage, they will vote down the nomination as a protest against the current railroading of a credible allegation and against the way they were railroaded in 2016. I believe Jeff Flake would join them.

DWill wrote:

Quote:

No doubt Ford was traumatised, but the possibility of misperception on her part is a legitimate question.

The details need to be investigated, but the possibility that Dr. Ford is making this up from whole cloth is extremely small. It's still true, though, that if Kavanaugh is falsely saying that nothing happened, he is not fit to be a justice. If he might have been so drunk that he didn't recall what had happened, then he should pay the delayed consequence of the behavior. That's the way life works sometimes.

Sometimes people that drunk get behind the wheel and kill people. What does it say to the public if people of color can be shot with impunity because a police officer was nervous (or feeling sadistic) but Yale Law Graduates are not going to have serious allegations against them examined carefully? Unfortunately that's also the way life works sometimes.

I had to return to the "Is Trump smart" question that interbane answered simply in the negative. To prove he's right, you just need to dip into the record of Trump's accumulated statements, just randomly point to something, like flipping through a book. Here's Trump comparing his crowd size to Elton John's: " I have broken a lot of Elton John records, and he seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don't have a musical instrument. Really, we do it without, like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical instrument: the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth. Right? The brain, more important than the mouth, is the brain. The brain is much more important. "

The culture war aspect comes in mostly from the evangelicals, I think, and then only on a couple of issues, certainly not on some family values basis.

I find that a very surprising comment. Evangelical Christians see the nuclear family as the bedrock of society and culture, and see this value system undermined by the modern secular world.

DWill wrote:

The disaffected voters would have been less pleased with the others, but with the alternative being Clinton...they would have settled. A moderate Republican would have been able to draw votes from people who didn't like Clinton but couldn't see a guy like Trump in the WH.

Many right wing voters could well have seen a moderate Republican candidate as not different enough from Clinton to bother voting. Trump created a mass movement with his rallies and sense of excitement.

DWill wrote:

Another Republican would also have benefited from the wind at Trump's back. The wind was produced by the typical urge for change after eight years of one party's rule and the worldwide nativist/nationalist phenomenon. Even though Bush, Rubio, and most of the rest were not strongly nativist or nationalistic, they were more so than the Democrats, and they probably would have moved more rightward after being nominated.

I am only relying on reading information from a long way away (Australia), but this election challenged the theory of centrist convergence, illustrating that polarising alternative candidates generate more attention and interest, even if their policies seem worse in technical terms than centrists.

DWill wrote:

Quote:

Similarly with homosexuality, there is an unstated subtext in gay marriage advocacy that bringing children into the world is immoral so barren relationships are morally superior to traditional families.

Is there really such a subtext? What I see more often is advocacy for gay couples to be able to adopt, which would seem not to indicate a judgment against childbearing.

My view is that the Ehrlich view of humanity as a plague upon the planet has seeped deeply into progressive mythology. So while no one will say they are against motherhood or apple pie, the reality is that the modern secular religion views big families as sinful.

The unstated implication of that cultural attitude is that a childless lifestyle, not bringing new children into the world, reduces the overall footprint of humanity and is therefore virtuous. That is more about a psychoanalytic speculation on unconscious motivation than an explicit argument, since anyone saying such things meets strong emotional hostility. The further problem is that this anti-natal attitude is more common among the educated, so the selective pressure involves a steady evolutionary dumbing-down of humanity as the poor and stupid outbreed the rich and smart, who have a convenient rationalisation for their hedonistic desire not to sacrifice their personal pleasures for the sake of child-raising.

DWill wrote:

Quote:

Yes, it is about the feeling that traditional American culture with roots in local community has been displaced by a globalised cosmopolitan elite. That is much the same culture clash that gave rise to Hitler.

So do we have only Trump's low popularity numbers to thank for such a development still appearing distant?

On my zodiac age theory of history, comparing events separated by the natural orbital period of 2148 years, the USA is now at the point that Rome reached in 130 BC in its slide from republic to empire.

De facto world empire had been established by Rome about fifteen years earlier in 146 BC with the destruction of Carthage and Corinth, and presaged earlier with the defeat of Hannibal in 202 BC, like the American defeat of Hitler. The moral sense of Republican virtue meant Romans would not willingly accept military government for another century, after a series of social and civil wars allowed Augustus to emerge as emperor.

Trump is a tester for the prospect of military dictatorship in the USA. I don’t think such a prospect will happen unless the economy collapses under the weight of climate change, which is probably decades away, and could be avoided altogether. The emergence of scientific frameworks for public policy might forestall that risk, but only if grounded in a better approach to social reconciliation.

The confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court is the key to getting this done in a timely manner, which explains why the deranged Left is going to such outrageous extremes to fabricate false allegations against Kavanaugh and stage coordinated, well-funded protests to try to block the U.S. Senate from confirming him.

Once Kavanaugh is on the court, it will add the necessary support for constitutional “emergency powers” that concentrate power in the executive branch of government (currently headed by President Trump) during times of war and national emergencies.

The Kavanaugh hearings have drawn an inordinate amount of attention from the "resisters." The media says the fuss is about abortion, but it's more than that. According to the author of the article, once there is a solid rule-of-law majority on the Supreme Court, Trump will begin arresting America's enemies. This goes back to the first post in this thread, where I quoted from Trump's Executive Order regarding seizure of assets and so on. Part of that order authorizes the seizure of property/assets from:

(B) ...a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:

(1) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or

(2) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;

This describes the Clintons, Obamas, Bushes and many others to a T. Mention of the "extraction of national resources" could be a direct reference to Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Uranium One deal, where as Secretary of State she helped Russia acquire 20% of America's uranium ore.

I have mixed feelings about Trump subjecting traitors to tribunal justice. He only has the powers because Hillary Clinton was supposed to assume the presidency. Obama's orders made it possible for the next president to declare martial law and clean out the rats nest in Washington, but that president was supposed to be Clinton. Toward the end of her campaign she mentioned the "dark heart" of Alex Jones, and if she'd won then the media's lead story right now would be Jones' show trial. But Clinton lost, so all they can do to Jones is try to destroy his influence. Also, if Clinton had won, she would have appointed coke-snortin' Marxist Obama to the Supreme Court, and no telling who else. We dodged a big, deadly bullet in that election.

At any rate, thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, spies and so on may soon be arrested and tried for treason. We shall see.

This Mike Adams who runs Natural News is a real specimen that I encourage others to check out--or on second thought maybe it's a waste of time. I see coke head has been added to Obama's resume. What's behind the hate display for Obama I don't even want to think about.

The Truth about conservatives comes out when they advocate martial law, mass arrests, military tribunals, seizing control of mass media, disbanding the FBI, and suspending elections - a few of the things they accuse opponents of doing plus much more. Yes these conservatives are true freedom loving patriots! Actually no, just another a bunch of hysterical power-grubbing fascists.

The culture war aspect comes in mostly from the evangelicals, I think, and then only on a couple of issues, certainly not on some family values basis.

I find that a very surprising comment. Evangelical Christians see the nuclear family as the bedrock of society and culture, and see this value system undermined by the modern secular world.

This culture war is about whether other definitions of the family should be allowed to exist. It's not really that evangelicals think they won't be able to have their nuclear family experience if progressives work their agenda. If some of them think that is indeed a legitimate fear, they're exaggerating. Culture war is specifically about wanting the society to be the same as your own group. It's not enough for warriors on either side to have their own culture within a larger one. Evangelicals want everyone's nuclear family to consist of a married different-sex couple and their offspring. They feel under attack by "secular" society on other fronts as well, which is a fear partly created by their leadership. The point regarding the family is that evangelicals don't have a monopoly on decent family values. There are aspects of healthy families that they overlook or denigrate, such as the viability of same-sex unions, the availability of healthcare, and systemic problems of poverty. A real nuclear family issue, like families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border, is likely to get little attention from them.

Quote:

Many right wing voters could well have seen a moderate Republican candidate as not different enough from Clinton to bother voting. Trump created a mass movement with his rallies and sense of excitement.

Maybe, but it's likely the nominee would have moved to the right, and possible that dislike of HRC would have still been enough to make voters lukewarm about the GOP candidate to vote against her.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote:

Another Republican would also have benefited from the wind at Trump's back. The wind was produced by the typical urge for change after eight years of one party's rule and the worldwide nativist/nationalist phenomenon. Even though Bush, Rubio, and most of the rest were not strongly nativist or nationalistic, they were more so than the Democrats, and they probably would have moved more rightward after being nominated.

I am only relying on reading information from a long way away (Australia), but this election challenged the theory of centrist convergence, illustrating that polarising alternative candidates generate more attention and interest, even if their policies seem worse in technical terms than centrists.

We'll have to see whether centrism is really out the door or just not sexy enough for now. Part of Trump's success appeared to come from him and his lieutenants convincing folks that Clinton wasn't centrist but rather a dangerous radical, or, of course, criminal.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote:

Is there really such a subtext? What I see more often is advocacy for gay couples to be able to adopt, which would seem not to indicate a judgment against childbearing.

My view is that the Ehrlich view of humanity as a plague upon the planet has seeped deeply into progressive mythology. So while no one will say they are against motherhood or apple pie, the reality is that the modern secular religion views big families as sinful.

I think we need to recuse ourselves from the plague-upon-the-planet judgment. Our defense of our species will be infected by bias and self-interest.

Quote:

The unstated implication of that cultural attitude is that a childless lifestyle, not bringing new children into the world, reduces the overall footprint of humanity and is therefore virtuous. That is more about a psychoanalytic speculation on unconscious motivation than an explicit argument, since anyone saying such things meets strong emotional hostility. The further problem is that this anti-natal attitude is more common among the educated, so the selective pressure involves a steady evolutionary dumbing-down of humanity as the poor and stupid outbreed the rich and smart, who have a convenient rationalisation for their hedonistic desire not to sacrifice their personal pleasures for the sake of child-raising.

But it's a tortuous path of causality from pro-gay attitudes to anti-birthism. I believe that the desire for children is strong enough that few couples let population concerns prevent them from having children. They may have only one or two, possibly influenced by overpopulation worries, but they have other reasons as well for keeping the family small. And that's a good thing the way I look at it. It's also a good thing for people to feel comfortable remaining childless. It means they haven't succumbed to social pressure to procreate. Perhaps such pressure is lessening.

Last edited by DWill on Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!